Bah.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7832647.stm

I now reserve the right to refuse to work anywhere where there is religious iconography of any sort. EDIT: And still be paid.

This is ridiculous.
(ThomsonsPier consumes, Fri 16 Jan 2009, 11:59, 10 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

Is it ridiculous, though?
This particular case, I mean. People aren't expected to carry on with their jobs in the face of attitudes that offend them without action being taken, after all.

It might seem ridiculous to a secular person, but if you were expected to work in an environment that you found offensive, you'd expect to have your views listened to and an accomodation made, wouldn't you?

I would.
( Kroney, Fri 16 Jan 2009, 12:06, Reply)

No, it is ridiculous
Or am I allowed to refuse to come to work because I don't want to have to ride the tube that has adverts for churches on it?
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Fri 16 Jan 2009, 12:09, Reply)

@scarpe
only if your job is to drive the tube, it's entirely your choice how to commute to work.
(b3tamax Mate, you're fat and I'll throw you in the river, Fri 16 Jan 2009, 12:14, Reply)

Ok
I'll concede that point.

But I bet if an athiest did refuse on that basis they wouldn't be given the same courtesy as this driver.
( scarpe We Stole Bikes, Fri 16 Jan 2009, 12:18, Reply)

Clear double standards
If an atheist bus driver had refused to drive the buses with bible-bashing adverts on em (that sparked this whole campaign off), do you reckon his belief system would be recognised and he'd be paid in full whilst refusing to drive? Would he fuck.

You could probably come up with religious objections to every single advert on every single bus (that film's got nudity in, my religion prevents me from drinking coffee etc etc), then you could just sit on your arse at home whilst earning a bus driver's wage.

They should explain to this remedial cunt, very slowly in words of one syllable, that the advertising revenue helps pay his wages, and as such he should take a proportional wage cut. How can he consider it unethical to drive the bus, but still pocket wages funded by said advert?
(Son of Sam-i-am We're all as mad as hatters here, Fri 16 Jan 2009, 12:19, Reply)

I don't agree with it.
Bet they don't make an 'Allah' one.
(oneinthepink is at your cervix m'lady, Fri 16 Jan 2009, 12:22, Reply)

How many atheists
Would honestly say that they find religious adverts *offensive*?

I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here, but by and large people who say they're atheists are really only agnosts. If scarpe really had a problem with riding on the Tube when it's papered with religious adverts, he'd take the bus. If he had to work on it and he really had a problem with it, he would have complained already.

As to whether or not an accomodation would have been made for him, I couldn't comment, but he'd certainly be well within his rights to be angry if they refused.
( Kroney, Fri 16 Jan 2009, 12:47, Reply)

@ Sam
But you're looking at this from the secular perspective. For this religious guy, it *is* unethical for him to be riding on a bus that openly denounces his God. He won't care about the advertising revenue, as far as he's concerned, he has a right to work in an environment which doesn't have a go at his beliefs and, farnkly, I'm inclined to agree with him.
( Kroney, Fri 16 Jan 2009, 12:49, Reply)

But you imply
that the 'secular perspective' is somehow inferior to a religious one.

Religion offends me as much as or more than these adverts offend religious people. It is primarily a tool of subjugation, oppression and prejudice designed to give the powerful more power over people.

And I am definitely atheist rather than agnostic. I'm fully aware of the difference.

As I stated above, religious people are somehow given protection from things that offend their belief system, whereas atheists are not.

This is what I like about Dawkins et al, and what I believe the purpose of these adverts is: that atheism is as logical and as valid a belief system as any religion, and should be treated and acknowledged as such.
(Son of Sam-i-am We're all as mad as hatters here, Fri 16 Jan 2009, 13:25, Reply)

I don't claim that one viewpoint is superior to another at all
I'm just saying that he's a man who's been offended by something that attacks his beliefs. He shouldn't be lambasted simply because those views are religious and you don't agree with him. You'd have the same right to complain if situations were reversed.
( Kroney, Fri 16 Jan 2009, 14:24, Reply)